難！難！難！

傳道者說：「眼看看不盡，耳聽聽不足。」

學道未精者說：「眼不見為淨，聽不見能靜。」

學道者說：「道可道，非常道。」說，不如不說，此所謂不說和尚之精神吧！

不過過境而已！該說，不該說。難！難！難！

做榜樣！但speech and deeds之間！Deeds 固然重要！言道豈能不善用之！難！難！難！

實踐神學之難！

實踐神學之難！比系統神學難，難在於落入實況，牽涉形、勢、人，三者皆異常複雜！

事情道其反，總能指出其正；謂之正，總能想到其反。說少數之意是，總有多數之意非；說少數之意非，必有多數之意是。是是是非，是正是非，人言而矣否！

不能如此！萬萬不能如此！

決策必要看原則，甚麼是大原則！原則可以多，但隨意按時勢和偏好選擇所好之原則，重這個輕那個。但那一個原則在先，那一個原則在後，必須看作出議決之有關群體之大方向和使命，當然也看這群體之自我認知。自我認知就是該群體的無形價值觀，這無形的價值如果沒有被徹底對付，就成為一個人或該群體的神明，總要各樣事和人都最終要服役於這價值意識。這放在某些國家而言是如此，放在一些小群體亦如此！

The Purpose / aim / objective of systematic theology–in answering a question of a respectful friend

A friend, a senior colleague from New College dropped a question in my blog:

“Given what you have said (here and in a previous related post), what, then, may I humbly ask, is (or should be, or can be) the purpose / aim / objective of systematic theology?”

First of all, I appreciate this question, which reminds me of our time in Edinburgh where theological questions freely through which ideas were exchanged, minds were sharpened, friendships were built. My salute to Y from HK, E from Singapore, E who is now in Taiwan, B in Edinburgh, S and SN who are still in Edinburgh, J in Edinburgh (who is however quite reserved in expressing idea sometimes).

Back to the issue which I can run away.

One principle or motto which I think the above inquisitor and me share is “contextual”, at according to what I know about his position. Therefore, when I said systematic, I never leave that of my frame of reference. To answer his question, let me begin with a context.

Let say a theologian, be him or her a biblical scholar, a biblical theologian (according to the s0-called school of biblical theology), an ethicist, a pastoral theologian et cetera. He or she anchors him/herself in a given context he at that particular time and space does his/her (a) theology with a concern that occupies his/her mind. To deal that particular concern which is of course always rooted in a context,

• he goes to biblical texts to unravel, to re-present, to re-tell the story, the context, whereby a theological motif being voiced out.
• he also reflects and medicates, precipitate and crystalize what he thinks most crucial and relevant to the situation that concerns him/her, be it a social, national, ecclesiatical, or familial issue.
• having situated himself/herself in this context, his concern is always practical, which means he means to bring his theological reflection applicable to the situation, because he begins his/her doing of this particular theology from that context and situation. To be practical means then he has to see his theological reflection applicable, answering to the issue concern.
• if the context concerned is related to social, psychological, historical, cultural-traditional, or/and cultural linguistic aspect a study of which may help bring lights to his/her theology, he/she is bound to do so.

Having said that, what about the traditional topics that are covered in most systematic theology textbooks that now still being used in most seminaries in HK, Taiwan, and Malaysia: Christology, Pneumatology, eschatology, doctrine of God, ecclesiology, doctrine of the Trinity, anthropology et cetera. If a systematic theologian as I define above has to fulfill his/her job, could he or she not have included many/all these understanding into his/her own theological construction? Would his/her dealing with the biblical text not charge him/her with the task of making the Christological motifs in the NT relevant to his/her context, or of applying the pneumatological understanding into his interpretation of his/her context, or interpreting ecclesiology so that the task of the church be more correlating with the context and the situations or so that the definition of a church given a new light from perspective of the challenge of the context? Would he/she need not analyze the complexity of the situations and people involved which he/she has to make use of tools available in our contemporary.

In that sense, a Christian ethicist is not exempted from the study of the theological motifs that are found the Bible, nor a practical theologian, pastoral theologian, et cetera. He/she (an ethicist or others) has to be in a sense a systematic theologian who deals with biblical texts on the one hand and his context on the other.

Traditionally, Christian tradition plays a part in the formation of a systematic theology. I view this as a resource rather than a source. For throughout Christian church history, theological debates revolved around each own particular social, historical, ideological context; theological insights and emphases thus produced made sense to their contexts, but may now become resources, like a live thinktanks which are open to theologians for their use. These historical productions are themselve contextual theologies.

Have I been clear in my articulation and delineation, being a student of theology who is more often unsystematic than systematic.

What is Practical/Pastoral Theology?

How could I be so slow in finding out where I am, until now that I see the discourse in practical theology/pastoral theology?

“The methods employed in pastoral or practical theology are as varied as is demanded by the issues that are being considered.  Different issues or phenomena require different approaches and methods.” (“Introduction to Pastoral and Practical Theology,” 9)

“All of which means that practical theologians need to be flexible in the methods they use.  They must be prepared to engage in interdisciplinary learning, because the theological tradition does not in itself provide all the information about the modern world that is needed to have a good understanding of many issues.  Furthermore, an important skill that is needed is that of selecting and interpreting appropriate evidence from many sources, including theological ones.  Only thus can reasonably clear and well-informed judgments be reached.

In practice, practical theologians use a wide variety of sources and methods in their work.  Historical and textual methods may be used to understand and interpret theological insights and sources.  Empirical methods such as surveys and questionnaires may be used to establish the nature of contemporary beliefs and behavior, or the nature of a particular human need is a locality.  The capacity to be able to reflect upon and articulate something of the theological significance of human experience is highly valued in practical theology, as is the capacity to interpret meanings, myths, and symbols that shape people’s views of themselves and their world.  At all points, however, methods are only deployed if they are relevant to the task of arriving at the appropriate pastoral theological response to a situation.  (“Introduction to Pastoral and Practical Theology,” 9-10)

“Here are some of the elements that may, or perhaps should, be typical of much contemporary practical theology:

1) Practical theology is a transformational activity…..

2) Practical theology is not just concerned with the propositional, the rational, and the logical in life and theology.  It needs to find an important place for parts of human experience and date like the emotions, the symbolic, and the irrational if it is fully to address the human condition……

3) Practical theology is confessional and honest.  This means that it is committed to looking at the world through the ‘lenses’ of a particular committed faith perspective or inhabited worldview…….

4) Practical theology is unsystematic…….

5) Practical theology is truthful and committed…….

6) Practical theology is contextual and situationally related.  This means that practical theology is committed to being a kind of ‘local theology’ (Schreiter 1985).  It gives priority to the contemporary context or situation in which it is involved rather than to other situations, other times, and other places.  While historical data, classic texts such as the Bible, and experiences from elsewhere may help practical theology in its task, its main concern is to explore and contribute to immediate contexts, situations, and practices.

7) Practical theology is sociopolitically aware and committed……

8) Practical theology is experiential…….

9) Practical theology is often reflectively based…….

10) Practical theology is interrogative…….

11) Practical theology is interdisciplinary.  That is to say, it uses the methods and insights of academic and other disciplines that are not overtly theological as part of its theological method.  Theology in itself,. it is maintained, cannot reveal all that one needs to know adequately to respond to contemporary situations and issues.  Thus economics, sociology, psychology, and other disciplinary findings and perspectives must be utilized (Pattison 1986).

12) Practical theology is both analytical and constructive.  It helps people more fully to understand what kind of situation they are in, and the theological themes that may be relevant to it in its analytical phase.  However, it may also help people to construct ideas about how they might change and where they might like to move in its positive, constructive, normative, or prescriptive role.

13) Practical theology is dialectical and disciplined.  Proceeding by way of a kind of critical conversation, many contemporary practical theologies hold in creative tension a number of polarities such as

• theory and practice
• the religious tradition emanating from the past and contemporary religious experience
• particular situational realities and general theoretical principles
• what is (reality) and what might be (ideal)
• description (what is) and prescription (what ought to be)
• written texts and the ‘texts’ of present experience
• theology and other disciplines
• the religious community and society outside the religious community

Disciplined conversation and in the midst of these polarities allows practical theology to be both discerning and creative.

14) Practical theology is skillful and demanding.

(“Introduction to Pastoral and Practical Theology,” 13-16.)

Woodward, James, and Stephen Pattison, eds., The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,  1999).

Many of these above elements are found in my thesis.  In Chinese, I am just like ru meng chu xing如夢初醒.